Given the best instruction, might I become a decent golfer? My friends may disagree, but I tend to think so. I’m certainly never going to be the next Tiger Woods, but I think an occasional birdie or two on my scorecard is a realistic expectation. Excelling in one area or another typically takes natural ability, something within that just simply clicks. Regarding aviation, I believe the best pilots are those possessing an innate ability to control an airplane with unmatched precision, the utmost situational awareness, and who are always multiple steps ahead of their ship. Several recent airline accidents linked to pilot error have lessened the flying publics confidence in the existence of these qualities within every airline pilot. After much debate, regulatory change has ensued, aimed at ensuring capable hands are at the controls of airliners nationwide. In my opinion, those changes have completely missed the mark to remedy the core issue - flight training leniency. Although positive changes such as new fatigue mitigation policies were implemented, more is needed to tighten up flight-training standards.

Most pilots, whether at the general aviation or professional level, can be trained to meet the minimum standards that satisfy certification criteria. That doesn’t necessarily require a high level of natural talent. During my time as a flight instructor and airline check airman, one of the toughest aspects of such responsibility was deciding if a pilot candidate was truly ready to be released from training supervision. Many instructors would rely on the old adage that when they felt comfortable placing their own family members on an aircraft under a candidates command, they’re likely ready. Although a notable thought, deeper analysis is important.

On a perfect day, absent threats of poor weather and aircraft malfunctions, even a marginally skilled pilot can likely execute a safe outcome. But what if a pilot under optimal conditions is 100% mentally taxed in doing so? Yes, they’re getting the job done, but what if a new challenge or emergency were to present itself? The result would be a pilot with no additional mental capacity to handle the situation. A sign of low mental workload is that of a very relaxed pilot, someone who is well ahead of the aircraft as well as the system in which they are flying. If the pilot in question appears nervous and/or reactive versus proactive, that’s a sign they won’t likely be able to cope when faced with adversity. Weaker pilots tend to function best within a normal, almost scripted, day-to-day scenario. But sticking to the script is often not possible; thinking outside the box is a must.

Many airline or corporate pilots will tell you they can gauge the caliber of their fellow crewmember within the first few minutes of stepping into the flight deck with them. It’s difficult to describe without seeing it first hand, but a talented pilot leaves a distinct footprint. Handling their duties with ease and efficiency in a relaxed manner is just one such indicator. Although errors are still inevitable by even the best of pilots, an underlying foundation of natural talent is a must. Exceptional pilots are able to recognize errors and quickly mitigate them before a situation deteriorates. And even if a situation grows quickly out of control, pilots well equipped with a solid foundation of skill can dig themselves out of a hole. Doing so requires proficiency, knowledge, and talent.

For each airline pilot, maintaining those three mentioned qualities is at times challenging. Most days on the job are filled with uneventful trips from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’, and rarely is a pilot put to the test. In recognition of this fact, annual training and observation by flight training personnel is paramount. Aside from initial new-hire simulator training that exposes crewmembers to a range of highly challenging scenarios, each pilot revisits the simulators annually for proficiency checks. On top of that, captains are subject to random yearly observations while operating an actual flight. Maintaining knowledge of aircraft systems and operating procedures is further facilitated through annual ground school clinics and semi-annual exams. These checks and balances are important tools that not only maintain skill, but are designed to arrest errors and weaknesses. Any pilots showing deficiencies are promptly corrected through additional training until up-to-standard.

In the eyes of the FAA, hiring skilled airline pilots begins first with attaining minimum initial flight hour and certification requirements. As a result of regulatory change mentioned earlier, changes to this policy have upped the minimum experience for airline employment to as much as 1,500 flight hours. Although setting a reasonable baseline is important, it’s irrelevant if a pilot lacks natural ability. It’s analogous to my quest in becoming a top-notch golfer – minus talent, endless instruction likely won’t matter. Case in point, a pilot with thousands of flight hours was unable to make it through our initial airline-training course. It wasn’t a question of having a bad day; this person simply didn’t get it. On the other hand, one of the best pilots I know personally was hired with a mere 500 flight hours almost a decade ago. Training for him was effortless and today he’s a highly respected test pilot and FAA pilot examiner.

Ensuring skilled pilots in our skies doesn’t hinge on arbitrary flight hour requirements; it instead boils down to training and testing. In light of growing pilot demand and the high cost of training each individual, pressure exists to push pilots through the training pipeline. A trend where flight schools and airlines bend over backwards to see a candidate through this process is concerning. For strong pilots this is isn’t a problem, but the occasional weak ones tend to slip by as well. Although not an epidemic, subpar pilots slipping through the cracks are no surprise in such a forgiving environment. Signing off a pilot who uses every brain cell to meet the minimum criteria is no recipe for success. We are fortunate to have a highly skilled population of pilots in the industry, but the very safety net designed to arrest the occasional weak ones, in many cases might as well be a hammock.

Well, there are a lot of good comments below, and I'll add mine. I think the gist of what Daniel is saying here is that good pilots, as in other career fields, are born, not made and that the 1500 hr rule is not the answer that all thought it should be. If one looks back closely to the Colgan crash which started all that, both pilots had above 1500 rs. It was the training and rest scenario that should have come into play. As was stated in the article, I can spend just a few minutes next to someone and tell if they are a pilot or button pusher. If an upset of some kind comes along, I would much rather have someone next to me that is ahead of the plane and pretty much can react as needed rather than just a blank stare and D-U-H-H and start looking around for the checklist. That is not to say that a checklist is not good but in the case of a genuine upset, there are many in which you don't have time to get it out, let alone read it, and you best know pretty much what it says and what you need to do. The ones that don't are generally the ones we read about.

"Ya have it or ya don't" - I think you are referring to the natural-born physical talent some people have, a necessary prerequisite to be a world-standard pilot, but not necessarily enough. In any activity requiring complex coordination of external devices, one of the most important factors is starting young. I myself started flying in my late 30s, and would give my eye-teeth to have the natural physical ability of some of my friends. But some of these same friends, who have amazing flying skills are not necessarily safe aviators, lacking good decision-making ability, and general aviation knowledge. I heard Chuck Yeager tell a great story about a buddy of his during the war, who was a great stick-n-rudder guy, but a terrible navigator. He got a crop-dusting job in the mid-west after the war, and one day had to dead-stick it after running out of gas. He picked his spot, and put it down safely onto a gas-station ramp stopping at the pump. He laconically said to the attendant "I'm sure you don't see many airplanes around here" The equally laconic attendant replied " yeah - they generally land across the road at the airport"!The mettle of a pilot is often shown in an emergency, and good decision-making is critical in the favorable outcome of a crisis. Yes, great "can't-be-taught" talent will pull you out of a hole sometimes, but often it is in combination with a questioning mind, backed up with a great body of knowledge to draw on in such moments.I am a professional concert pianist by trade, and in my business most people start around 3-4 years old. Most of us would be better pilots if we got a start this early - no different than any other sport. The non-talented also get weeded out very easily at this age, as the brain is not developed enough to make up for talent.

No doubt that instruction, practice and repetition are critical. I don't fly but I do play guitar, and I'm decent at it but I can easily tell that 90% of getting good is spending time to practice.

But then I look at common human disorders like vertigo, dyslexia, motion sickness, etc. These all seem to have an innate component, or at least can't be unlearned. There are definitely people who are "born with it".

My apologies if that's the case. To any students reading out there, this is aimed at seasoned pilots who's talent has had time to shine through. LIke I said, most have what it takes to make it through the pipeline - it's the occasional few that shouldn't, but do.

I personally think, in regards to my comment of "Good pilots are born, not made", that a born pilot should gain some confidence rather quickly and become rather comfortable fairly quickly, after sitting down in the seat and looking things over, whether student or veteran.

I tend to agree with preacher on this and har expressed that on numerous occasions, but have a couple of comments of quantization.

1) Some folks have natural talent upon which to build. But being a good bus driver, pilot or doctor takes much practice to get really good, that you just know intuitively how to get yourself out of a jam. That is not to mean that you need to be checklisted to death, though those probably prevent more accidents than we give them credit.

But in the end, if things go into the crapper fast, I want a pilot that has a good grasp of the basics an can execute the checklist out of good pilot skill and innate knowledge immediately without having to fish for the appropriate checklist.

2. While those with the most innate talent for flying may feel confident soon after getting in the seat, more deadly mistakes are made by those who get too confident too soon, than otherwise. Though inacknowlwdge there are cases (Nam) where you best get confident quick and build up your piloting ability or otherwise you'll end up going home in a body bag or not at all (lost in some fiery crash in the jungle).

While it should be possible to be a good pilot without previous combat experience, if there is one benefit from being in hell, it is that trial by fire has helped figure out who are some of the best aviators.

Overconfidence is just as bad as no confidence, and I mean not to dismiss training at all. Experience, be it training or actual flying time, should build confidence. I am merely stating that a good pilot is normally comfortable as he sits down in a SIM or cockpit, rather than in total awe and feeling overwhelmed. When one is overwhelmed, you have to get past all that before you can start to learn.

I really like this article, but this problem exists across the entire spectrum of careers. Objective requirements and standards are the best way. If you use a subjective system there will be an equal or greater crack for the weaklings to slip through (think politics or business relationships).

What do you suggest changes? How can an airline demand a higher talent pool for less pay and less security?

Many years ago and in another country and for another administration I used to examine for command at sea. A DPE for ships if you like. As Daniel states - you could tell within a few moments if a person was qualified - the rest of the trip (generally 48 hours at sea) was to check the various boxes to confirm your view. VERY occasionally someone you didn't think "had it" proved you wrong. I can't remember an occasion when someone who impressed you in the first few minutes blew it. But we had a problem. In the politically correct, box ticking to produce a result world - there was absolutely nowhere to cover a situation where someone had all the hours and you had ticked the boxes - but there was no way in heck you would let them go to sea in command of a ship with your family on board.

We covered this by creating fair but very demanding scenarios to see if we could put a cross in a box instead of a tick and so declare a "no pass". But if we got caught with all the boxes still checked we marked the test "Needs further review". We explained to the candidate that our trip was subject to random review by a senior examiner and that they would be getting another ride at no cost. That often resolved the problem - the thought of having to face a senior examiner made many of those borderline candidates withdraw. Yes we kicked it up the line - but there was no way in heck we wanted a candidate we didn't trust with our "gut feel" in command.

It may seem incredibly unfair to someone who had the hours and had checked the boxes to not give them command. But if we didn't think they had the "right stuff" we didn't give them command.

And for those of us who had this power we could potentially abuse - we examined each other as a group every three years by going to sea together. It was no "old boys club". We made each other sweat through the drills for days to confirm we were still fit to examine and exercise the authority.

I like your last paragraph. Prior to my retirement, in a 135 big iron operation, I had a guy that I had pretty much trained and flew with for many years. I retired in 09 and prior to that had checked him every year. He took over as Flt. Ops director when I left and went to a 121 carrier we worked with for his check ride. I came back last year part time but I did check him and I will do him next week again. He told me that his two rides at the 121 were nothing like what I gave him. He said when I was done, he knew that he had been checked and that's how it oughta be.

Thanks Captain Dan. Great read. I always like to imagine fokes doing something they have a natural passion for. And flying is definitely a bunch where that works best, but is also a beast where it pulls in new "pilots" simply because they think it's cool or looks fun. We must distinguish between these two types. And that is the million dollar question.

I think it's about the change in the nature of flight training. 50 years ago, maybe even 20 years ago, almost anyone who wanted to be a commercial pilot came from a military background. They were trained by the military and spent a few years there. Maybe I'm romanticizing this as a civilian, but it seems to me that military flight training is about keeping planes in the air and keeping pilots alive in the face of combat of course, but also any unexpected situations.

Private flight schools today seem like the equivalent of vocational schools. Their incentive is to graduate students. I'm probably insulting private instructors but it's a different model, and maybe pilots need to learn "under fire" and the only way to get that experience is in the military.

Medical people have more than 10 seconds in which to think and act. In a worst case situation those intial 10 seconds are all you have. Unless your hand/eye/brain neurons can make the right moves you are not suited to high end flying. What you do in private aviation is entirely different to what happens in commercial or military. I don't think you can train for this as in Skinner's Pavlov Dog scenario. Take a meter long stick. Get someone to drop that stick and let it fall with gravity. You try and grab that stick. Time the reaction. Do it both left handed and right handed. See how fast you are.

As far as the age thing goes..I had my kid in a sail plane from the age of 14 to 16. He had the courage of a lion and the first time he landed the thing he said "so what's the big deal". He spent more time servicing the tow winch and with his head in the engine of the Piper tow plane. Some people like flying and some don't. In my case I did not have the nerve or the temperament and decided to move on 1982. My kneees shook uncontrollably on landing. haha.

In 10 seconds, depending on the upset, if you can't fly the plane, whether a 150 or big iron, you may be headed for the ground, unable to recover. Lot's of stuff, you got time to get on out, halfway stabilized and figure out what to do, BUT, sometimes even that don't work, i.e the DC10 engine out in ORD several years ago. He went by the checklist and it put him to the ground. Not saying he wouldn't have anyway but he really started losing control as he pulled his speed back. That's a bad comparison as the checklist was for an engine out, not completely losing one, but you know what I mean. You been there and done that too, you old goat.lol

All I can say is that the families were paid out by the insurance company. I would have had the whole maintenace dept. Made redundant from both these airlines. Takes guts to call a halt to an engineering job especially when the whole team you have known for years. Check lists are fine..but in the last 10 seconds...when you are half way thru that list is what matters. Oh yes. I am like everyone else I cut corners and try new things at my risk. I know one company in a high risk business with 27k employees who have had i fatality in the last 10 years. A similar company doing the same work back in 82 was having one fatality every week.

That salary would attract some talent. Unfortunately, the commercial pilot trend is going the way of the professional truck driver, heavy equipment operators, and auto workers. The times and fortunes have changed, for better or worse. Lots of reasons why but the government influence in its quest to make everyone equal instead of "born equal" coupled with selling out for votes and $ is the dominating force. IMHO.

Doctors put much more work into preparing for their carrer than pilots. Doctors have to pay to study full time for 8 years after completing the same 12-14 years of primary and secondary school like everyone else. After 20-22 years of full-time study, all you have is a degree/license, but you can't practice as a doctor independently of medical supervisors for at least another 3-5 years of indentured servitude working known as internship/residency, which is paid less than only the lowest seniority regional airline pilots. For the mist demanding specialties, the training lasts for years past residency, in fellowships that are just glorified residencies with slightly higher pay, but not pilot at a major carrier pay. Only about 4% of applicants to medical school are ever admitted. The comparison is laughable.

Even lawyers, after completing 4 years of university, have to apply to law school and if admitted, spend another 3 years of grueling studies, in order to get a degree. Then have to study for the bar exam to be a licensed attorney, which is a dedicated effort over many months, with hours that alone compares to the effort of getting a pilot license, instrument rating, and even an ATP prior to the 1,500 rule. All that fit the previledge to be a lowly osid associate working long hours and doing the lion's share of the firms grunt work.

Getting a CDL for a truck or a bus requires usually paid instruction, with time and costs that approximate the costs of getting a pilot's license, at least before the run up in gas prices over the last few years. It does cost more to keep a bus in the sky than on the road.

So if you pull that card, you'll lose every time. Where one can acknowledge the value of a pilot us that they havd lives on their hands. But even then comparing 12 passengers in a small turboprop to a 55-seat coach riding on the highways; the bus not only has more lives at risk, but it's a more dangerous form of transportation that is more likely to result in the death of passengers and/or driver. And good luck getting a job as a truck or bus driver, if the school you attended had different equipment than the company you're applying to. In your check ride, you're likely to look like you don't know what you're doing because of nog bring familiar with the equipment. That proficiency test comes before employment and before getting any company training. So you may train on a C-152, but then get a check ride on the ERJ-145 or B-736.

Having paid for CDL training at a professional driving school is like having paid a flight school for training toward a pilot's license.

Except for a truck / bus job, BEFORE being hired and BEFORE getting on the job training, you're taken out for a 'check ride'. But even if you've got raw talent, if the euipmwnt you've trained on is very different from the equipment of the trucking/bus firm you applying to, you'll look foolish.

It's like training on a Cesna 152, then having a check flight on a ERJ-145 or a B-736, before brjng hired and before being type trained.

A good driving examiner can recognize the raw talent, but they'll still need to tell you to go and get more experience. They can't in good conscience put a rig on the road with a driver that is still struggling with the equipment, even though months later they may be awesome.

at the same you can get a CDL for around $1300 down to about $250 if you are lucking enough to know some one with a rig....you can then go get you a job making about 30k -40k.....Going thru flight training the cost is roughly 45k- up to about 150k depending on what school you go to....then you've got pay your dues until you have about 1500 hrs to even be considered for a right seat job that only pays about $19-$25 per hr.

The initial private pilot's license does not cos anywhere near that amount. If your dad owns a small trainer plane, than you can also et your training done for just the cost o gas, or maybe not web that. But why throw in exceptions that muddy the comparison.

Once you get your initial CDL or pilot's license, there are many endorsements that you can train for, and get examined in, etc.

There are more similarities than not. Training for a pilot's license costs a lot more at the moment because the cost if fuel has gone up so much in the last few years. The cost of operating an aircraft is borne directly by the student pilot and also indirectly passed along through the cost of instruction.

But cost of gas is an external factor and not an innate quality of piloting. So, if the biggest difference is based on the cost of gas, then there isn't as big of a difference as you would imply.

I won't be the one to defend those expensive flight programs. The pilots from those programs have been universally derided by some of the most expereinced

I think what Tim is speaking of here is the cost to get thru all the ratings etc. to where you can actually do something to make some money. About the biggest further endorsement on a CDL is HazMat and most larger companies are requiring it too. His point is that after that initial expense, you get out and drive and make a living. Many trucking companies now are contracting with training schools for around 6 grand or so, then upon graduation, the folks come to work for them for so long and pay the loan back out of their paycheck or pay the loan back directly if they quit. They come out of school and have a trainer with them for a period of time before getting a truck of their own. I feel like the Airlines are going to have to go to something like this in years to come.

Inbetwixt take off and landing thos you can have asnooze on a 767 whereas a truck driver can't. I used to have a recurring dream where I was driving an RV. I left the drivers seat to go back and do staff..always amased that the thing had not crashed. This recurred sveral times and ended about 3 years ago. Several on here think I need therapy.

You may if that is what you did. It is a wonder we are even having this conversation. LOL Of course it was a dream. And, if you are doing your job, you will not snooze between t/o and landings. You will notice that somebody is at the helm when one goes to P, unlike your RV.LOL

The airlines may find themselves needing to do something similar, bit fo now there are plenty of interested pilots who would part with any non-essential body part in exchange for a job as a commercial pilot.

If the airlines do enter training schemes, they better figure out wags to determine which pilots have aptitude for being a great pilot before either the airline ir pilot sink a lot of money into the training. Once you start spending lots of money on each pilot, there's pressure to not get rid of under-performing pilots into whom you've already sunk costs. <--- which seems the point of this article.

How do you keep the great and the trainable, and get rid of those who are neither great yet but also those not trainable to be great? before you sound a lot of time and money on them.

Therein lies the quandary for all. As your larger truck lines are taking warm bodies to fill seats and get trucks moving and generating revenue, so will the Airlines as they can. Minimal training and gain the rest by experience.

When I mentioned truck driver I really meant from a $ standpoint. They used to wear uniforms and be well paid. Today the bulk wear nasty sweat pants, baggy shorts, and shower shoes. Only a few earn good money. Also, a good truck driver is not made in a few weeks. Just pointing out how things have disentrigated in lots of professions.

That's what medical profession does. They strictly limit the number of applicants who enter medical school, and they have strict qualifications. Only about 4% of those who prepared during 4 years of university for application to medical school are admitted.

But they don't get $500,000. Only specialists get that much. Most primary care physicians earn much less.

By limiting the numbers of doctors, they are able to keep their costs artificially high. That's the problem with doctors, we don't have enough. If we had more physicians practicing, the prices would be lower.

Pilots have the opposite problem. There are too many pilots, so the costs come down. You don't have doctors with only a year ot two of premed studies instructing a whole new group of doctors for their doctoring license, in order to build up their "hours" to qualify to fly an airliner.

You can "play" doctor for as many thousands of hours you want. But unless you finish college with a top GPA, get good GMAT scores, attend 4 years of medical school, and finish a multi-year residency program, you don't get a chance to actually practice medicine, let alone qualify to be a med school professor, which will take some number of years as an attending physician with some level of repute.

Imagine that you couldn't qualify to be a CFI, unless you are among the best pilots at a major airline, and recognized amongst your peers as good enough to teach the next generation.

The two groups are so different. Planes are so sexy. Flying is sexy. But piloting as a profession will be more like high end bus drivers than doctors, going forward. They'll need good technical abilities and the situational awareness to keep their vehicle/aircraft from crashing and killing their passengers. There are just many more dangerous on the highways, then in skies. The variables on flying are more more predictable. A crash will more likely than not result from either mechanical issues (plane) or human performance issues (pilot). Buses have many more external dangers to mitigate on a daily basis.

Shane, I'm sorry to read your reaction. I strive for precisely the opposite of what you claim; my goal is that of an advocate for professional aviation. Oftentimes I'm forced into bluntness I'd otherwise expand upon with more allotted space. I'd be happy to address your point-of-view personally, if you wish. Daniel.Fahl@flightaware.com

Hiya shane. Same with me. Solve this problem and there would be no war and no starvation on this planet. It's a big problem no matter where you go. Some places and companies worse than others. Find a company where the boss has started at the bottom and you will be happy. Even then people can and do change.

By your comment, I am reminded of USAF and 2nd Lts. out of OTS. Those that looked and listened to their senior NCO's and the guys in the trenches and acted accordingly were the ones that made 1st and Capt. PDQ. Those with a " I got my bars and know it all" attitude had a problem and generally didn't have a long career. I don't like the elitism anywhere either as it can be very demeaning. Those folks seem to forget that they were at one time in the shoes of those they look down on.

Shane: Your withdrawal is well taken and appreciated. Please do not group us all in the Pompous A** category. We have all came up through the ranks over the years and in the Airlines especially, it was prevalent. CAPTAIN was God and to question actions or authority would bring you a severe reprimand or outright abuse/public rebuke. I started in 1973 as a lowly Flight Engineer on a 707, and even in a 135 environment, had a Captain of that type. FO had taken a good dose of it over the years and as that Senior Captain retired and we moved up, that was top in our mind, how we'd been treated over the years and when we hired the new FE, it was all different. That was in mid 70's but official CRM didn't really start coming out until the 90's. Lot's of time there for people to suffer.